April 25, 2012

But What in Place of Nuclear Power

In the wake of Fukushima, the Swiss government decided last year
to slowly, but definitely phase out nuclear energy. But the new energy
strategy for the next decade has drawn criticism, especially from
environmental organisations.

Switzerland’s
household electricity relies largely on nuclear and hydro power. Five
nuclear power plants, of which the last will be shut down in 2034,
currently produce 40.7 percent of the country’s electricity. Making
up for this large share once it’s phased out requires a fundamental
change in Switzerland’s energy policy, an “ambitious but
feasible” undertaking as the government keeps saying.

Deciding on the nuclear
shutdown is one thing, but implementing it and defining concrete
measures is a more complicated task. The Swiss Federal Council has
outlined its energy policy framework for the next decades under the
title ‘Energy Package 2050’. The main pillars of the strategy are
reduction of energy consumption, increasing efficiency of energy use,
and scaling up renewable energy.

The government has
calculated that by 2050, energy consumption could be reduced by 28
percent compared to 2000. Potential for reduction is mainly seen in
buildings rehabilitation and in the industrial and services sectors.
EnAW, the energy agency of the Swiss economy, has presented a study
including scenarios for increasing electricity efficiency. According
to EnAW, Swiss companies could save 7 twh (terrawatt hours) by 2050.

“That’s
disappointing,” says Jürg Buri, managing director of the Swiss
Energy Foundation (SES), which pushes for an ecological and
sustainable energy policy. “Swiss businesses could easily save
twice as much electricity by 2050.” There is potential already, he
says, to save 7 twh with more efficient industrial motors.

SES, Greenpeace, Pro
Natura and the WWF reacted with a joint statement to the government’s
announcement, saying the steps taken by the Federal Council are too
small. Patrick Hofstetter, climate policy campaigner at WWF
Switzerland calls the new energy strategy “unambitious”, claiming
that there’s much more potential to increase energy usage
efficiency in the economy as well as in households.

A strong instrument
such as a regulatory tax is lacking, he says. “Wasting electricity
is still too attractive for companies and households…Taking
measures to save energy requires knowhow that few people have, and
monetary savings are often small.”

The Federal Council
admits that the package of measures it presented suffice only to
fulfil about half the goals set for 2050. Swiss Energy Minister Doris
Leuthard ays she would be more than happy if more energy could be
saved than planned.

The second pillar of
the new energy policy strategy is renewable energy. The Federal
Council estimates that production could be increased by a third by
2050. But here too, views differ drastically. There is huge
difference between the government’s estimates and those calculated
by environmental groups concerning solar energy. The latter claim
that renewable energy is often reduced to hydropower, neglecting the
immense potential of solar energy.

Wind, biomass and the
sun currently only provide 0.26 percent of Switzerland’s
electricity. In Germany, those three energy sources held a 16 percent
share in the past year’s electricity mix. WWF Switzerland estimates
that solar energy could be scaled up by 15 twh by 2035, which is five
times the government’s goal.

“In Germany, in
December 2011 alone 3 twh of solar energy went online,” says
Hofstetter. “So, what Germany did within one month, Switzerland
expects to do in 23 years.”

Swiss Energy Minister
Doris Leuthard earned even more disapproval when she said that if
saving efforts failed, electricity would either have to be imported,
or up to six combined-cycle gas plants would have to be built to make
up for the energy gap caused by the nuclear shutdown.

WWF’s Patrick
Hofstetter recalls the latest outlook published by the International
Energy Agency. “It stated that in order to reach the two-degree
target (on warming of the planet) no investment in fossil energy
infrastructure should be made after 2017 worldwide. The Swiss plan to
invest in fossil energy therefore is quite awkward.”

Environmental groups
claim that the risks of nuclear energy shouldn’t be replaced by the
risks of climate change. Combined-cycle gas plants cause massive
carbon dioxide emissions. “Taking into consideration the country’s
CO2budget, the 30 million tons put out by each plant over the next 30
years would be far too much,” Hofstetter says.

The Federal Council is
using the threat of combined-cycle gas plants to put pressure on the
economy, but also on Swiss cantons and environmental groups: “If we
want to expand renewable energy production, environmental
organisations need to lessen their opposition to such projects,”
the Swiss Energy Minister demanded.

WWF’s Hofstetter says
the Federal Council is not right to argue that a more intense
development of renewable energy is hindered by conflicts with nature
and landscape protection. “It’s based on the prevailing idea that
hydropower is the only renewable energy in Switzerland, which indeed
is nearly fully developed.”

Hofstetter defends the
environmental organisation’s right to appeal construction projects,
which has recently come under increased pressure. “If that right
falls, nobody would insist on the laws concerning nature to be
respected.”